Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:30:50 -0500
From:      "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>
To:        "William Wong" <willwong@samurai.com>, "Brian Behlendorf" <brian@collab.net>, "Gordon Tetlow" <gordont@bluemtn.net>
Cc:        <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: IPFilter licence update
Message-ID:  <001801c0ef4d$b0106a80$0101a8c0@cascade>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.31.0106062215520.1996-100000@localhost> <002201c0ef16$ff0042a0$0300a8c0@anime.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Assuming this is so -- what about the kernel based code?  Granted, you can
just not specify the config option, but it is still built as a module, and
shouldn't be if it is not BSD licenesed IMHO.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy@veldy.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Wong" <willwong@samurai.com>
To: "Brian Behlendorf" <brian@collab.net>; "Gordon Tetlow"
<gordont@bluemtn.net>
Cc: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>; <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: IPFilter licence update


> Not sure if this was mentioned on this thread, but it looks like a commit
> was made recently which moved ipfilter into contrib.
>
> - Will
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Behlendorf" <brian@collab.net>
> To: "Gordon Tetlow" <gordont@bluemtn.net>
> Cc: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>; <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:21 AM
> Subject: Re: IPFilter licence update
>
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > > I removed Darren from the CC list as I don't think he really needs to
be
> > > in on this discussion....
> > >
> > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > > While meaning no disrespect to Darren with this followup.  What good
> does  a
> > > > signed memorandum with FreeBSD do if I decide at some point (which I
> won't)
> > > > to take the FreeBSD source and branch it into my own variant?  This
is
> how
> > > > the various BSDs came about in the first place.  It does seem rather
> > > > restrictive of a license for the FreeBSD core system.  Why can't
this
> be
> > > > released under the BSD license?
> > >
> > > <abestos_suit>
> > > It's not released under a BSD license because he doesn't want to. His
> > > perogative. We have some much more restrictive licenses (ie GPL) in
the
> > > base OS and no one complains about them.
> > > </abestos_suit>
> >
> > Wait, I'm confused.  I thought the resolution was that the ipfilter code
> > that was a part of FreeBSD was under the standard BSD license like
> > everything else under /usr/src (aside from /usr/src/gnu), and that
> > Darren's no-redistribution-of-modifications clause applied to
> > non-"release" versions of the software, i.e. beta releases, etc, the
> > implication being that once released, it'd be put under a BSD license
and
> > then integrated into FreeBSD.  Is that not the case?
> >
> > If not, that's pretty bad - it means that you can't really say anymore
> > that 'FreeBSD is under the BSD license, aside from some GNU bits', you
> > have to say 'FreeBSD is under a multitude of licenses, some of them not
> > open source, please examine all source code files for potential licenses
> > before redistributing'.  That would suck.
> >
> > Frankly, Darren's "no modified versions may be redistributed"
> > "clarification" is much worse than even the GPL.  But I'll avoid
> > recrossing well-covered ground.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
> >
>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001801c0ef4d$b0106a80$0101a8c0>